This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 21 December 2014, At: 02:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Teachers and Teaching: theoryand practicePublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Dispositions Toward CriticalThinking: The preserviceteacher's perspectiveRon E. Mcbride , Ping Xiang & David WittenburgPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Ron E. Mcbride , Ping Xiang & David Wittenburg (2002) DispositionsToward Critical Thinking: The preservice teacher's perspective, Teachers and Teaching:theory and practice, 8:1, 29-40

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540600120110556

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressedin this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content shouldnot be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2002

Dispositions Toward Critical Thinking:the preservice teacher’s perspectiveRON E. MCBRIDE & PING XIANGTexas A&M University, USA

DAVID WITTENBURGThe University of New Mexico, USA

ABSTRACT This study examines the critical thinking (CT) dispositions of 202 preservicephysical education students in the US. All were juniors or seniors and enrolled in physicaleducation secondary teaching methods classes. Results provided evidence of a positiveinclination toward CT on six of seven subscales and the total score of the CaliforniaCritical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI). When compared with other universitypopulations, the preservice physical education sample generated higher scores than com-munity college students, but were generally outscored by students from a private 4-yearuniversity cohort. Knowledge of the CCTDI data can be used to assist physical educationteacher educators as they prepare teachers capable of fostering CT in their students.

Introduction

Current concerns about the critical thinking (CT) skills and abilities of students atall educational levels in the US permeate the educational literature. The TurningPoints report, for example, concluded that there is no reason why `young adoles-cents cannot engage in critical and higher order thinking’ (Carnegie Council onAdolescent Development, 1989, p. 42). With the `Goals 2000: Educate America Actof 1990’, Congress established ® ve national educational goals; one of which calledfor increasing the proportion of college graduates who can think critically and beeffective problem-solvers (Ratcliff, 1993).

Preparing thoughtful students, however, is not just unique to education in theUS. Case and Wright (1997) argued that attempts to incorporate CT skills intosocial studies instruction in Canada were minimal. They presented a model thatused a variety of pedagogy skills including background knowledge, habits ofmind, and thinking strategies to help students become better thinkers. Wright(1996) also addressed the universal use of textbooks in social studies classroomsand recommended using CT exercises to reveal textual bias. In higher education,Rickman (1981) discussed the need for systematic training in CT skills in Englishuniversities and felt that little value had been placed on their use.

ISSN 1354-0602 (print)/ISSN 1470-1278 (online)/02/010029-12 Ó 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1354060012011055 6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

30 R. E. McBride et al.

In the US, implications of the Goals 2000 report appear to have a direct impacton teacher preparation programs. Now that we are in the twenty-® rst century, itis more compelling than ever for teachers to ensure that learners are good criticalthinkersÐ in school as well as in their everyday lives. In addition to experiencedteachers, new teacher certi® cation graduates will also be at the forefront of thismovement for enhanced critical thinking. So important is this push for CT thatUnderbakke et al. (1993) believed teaching teachers to teach thinking must becomeone of the highest priorities of education.

In the teaching of any skill or concept, teachers must ® rst understand the natureof their content and then be willing to infuse it into their instruction. Teaching forCT is no different. Ennis de® ned critical thinking as `reasonable and re¯ ectivethinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do’ (1987, p. 10). In anattempt to furnish structure and theory to CT, Ennis detailed categories of skillsthat included clarifying ideas, assessing the accuracy of information, and problem-solving abilities. Beyer views CT as analyzing any `claim, source, or belief to judgeits accuracy, validity, or worth’ (1987, p. 33). McBride de® ned critical thinking inphysical education as `re¯ ective thinking that is used to make reasonable anddefensible decisions about movement’ (1992, p. 115), and furnished an extensiveoverview and framework for application to the psycho-motor environment.

A common element among these de® nitions points toward making good deci-sions. To make reasonable decisions about what to believe or do assumes that oneis willing to engage in critical thinking to arrive at `thoughtful’ decisions. Much ofthe research to date focuses on the cognitive skills involved in CT (e.g. comparing,contrasting, formulating and testing hypotheses), often at the expense of import-ant affective elements involved. These affective elements, or dispositions, arede® ned as tendencies to behave’ (Beyer, 1987; Ennis, 1987, 1994; Jones, 1995).Dispositions identi® ed in the CT literature include tolerating ambiguity, willing tosuspend judgment, being open-minded, inquisitive, and sensitive to other ideas;in short, a willingness to engage in sustained CT. Beyer (1987) stated that effectivethinking is as much characterized by CT dispositions as it is by a knowledge andutilization of the cognitive skills.

Triadic Dispositional Theory

While some authors, de® ne, identify, and recognize important CT dispositions,Perkins et al. (1993) offer a triadic dispositional theory in which they posit that afull account of intellectual behavior requires three logically distinct and separablecomponents. The three central elements to the theory include ability, sensitivity,and inclination. Abilities refer to the capabilities and skills actually needed tocarry through on a behavior (e.g. being open-minded). An individual with theability to be open-minded resists the impulse to decide quickly, listens to evidenceon both sides of an issue, and so on.

Sensitivity refers to an alertness to appropriate occasions for exhibiting thebehavior (Tishman et al., 1993). A person sensitive to open-mindedness, forexample, is aware of situations where narrow-mindedness and bias can occur, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dispositions Toward Critical Thinking 31

will be alert to explore alternate views. Inclinations deal with the tendency toactually behave in a certain way. A person possessed with an inclination toopen-mindedness would feel a leaning toward open-minded thinking when he orshe discerns the need’ (Perkins et al., 1993, p. 4).

Ability, sensitivity, and inclination form a triad of necessary and suf® cientconditions for the target dispositions (Perkins & Tishman, 1998). All three areinter-related and contributing factors to critical thinking. For example, one may besensitive to a certain kind of situation, but not care or be inclined to do anythingabout it. It is also possible for occasions to pass one by (sensitivity) even thoughone cares quite deeply (inclination) about it and is quite capable of followingthrough with it (ability).

In addition to providing an explanatory construct for CT dispositions, thetriadic model also identi® es seven distinct thinking dispositions. They include thedisposition to: (1) be broad and adventurous, (2) sustain intellectual curiosity, (3)clarify and seek understanding, (4) be planful and strategic, (5) be intellectuallycareful, (6) seek and evaluate reasons, and (7) be metacognitive. For a moredetailed description of the seven CT dispositions identi® ed in the triadic theory,the reader is referred to Perkins et al. (1993) and Tishman et al. (1993).

Dispositions also have important implications when teaching for critical think-ing. Facione et al. (1995) stated that one may have the ability to think in a carefulmanner, but not be inclined to do so. The same may be said of new teachers. Ifnewly certi® ed teachers are to teach for CT, they too must be inclined’ or willingto do so. Neophyte educators need not be excluded from conscious preparation offostering critical thinking in their respective teaching environments.

While much is known about the cognitive skills of good thinking, there is apaucity of information about the dispositional elements that support their useamong preservice teachers in the university population. We know little, forexample, about preservice teachers’ willingness or predisposition to engage in CTnor how they might compare with other university students. Addressing theUnderbakke et al. (1993) recommendation to promote teaching for CT might ® rstbegin with an examination of preservice teachers’ dispositions. In this study, wesurvey and assess the CT dispositions of a sample of preservice physical educationstudents and present a `dispositional pro® le’. The pro® le, however, representedbut a limited picture of one speci® c subgroup of college students. After obtainingthe pro® le, we then compared it with CT pro® les of other university/collegestudents. Comparison across university groups may afford additional insight intostrengths and/or weaknesses of preservice physical education students’ CT dispo-sitions as well as providing a broader perspective of how this subpopulationcompares with other college/university students.

Gender differences also represent an important variable for study in educationalresearch, and CT study is no exception. Investigations of gender differences on CTyield con¯ icting results. Skinner (1971) reported no gender differences, whileSchafer (1972) reported differences favoring women, and others (Simon & Ward,1974; King et al., 1990) reported differences favoring men. Consequently, speci® cresearch questions guiding the study included:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

32 R. E. McBride et al.

1. What is the overall CT disposition pro® le of a group of preservice physicaleducation teachers?

2. Are there discernible CT disposition differences between this universitypreservice population and other university/college students?

3. Are there any differences based on gender?

Method

Participants

Voluntary participants included 202 (127 male and 75 female) preservice physicaleducation teacher education students from nine public universities across the US.Of the 202 participants, 173 were Caucasian and the remaining 29 students wereeither African American or Hispanic. All were enrolled in a secondary teachingmethods in physical education class and were either juniors or seniors at the timeof the research study.

The nine universities selected provided: (a) a geographical representation ofphysical education teacher education programs across the US, and (b) programsthat included a secondary methods class in physical education. Universitiesselected were from the northwest, northeast, southeast, southwest, and midwestUS.

Instrumentation

The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI) (Facione &Facione, 1992) served as the data-gathering instrument for the study. The CCTDIcontains 75 Likert-style items and is designed for use among college/universitystudents. It includes eight scores: seven subscale scores, and a total CCTDI score(the sum of the seven subscales). The seven subscales (Facione et al., 1995) include:

1. Truth-seeking. Targets the disposition of being eager to seek the best knowledgein a given context, courageous about asking questions, and honest andobjective about pursuing inquiry even if the ® ndings do not support one’sself-interests or one’s preconceived opinions.

2. Open-mindedness . Measures one’s tolerance of divergent views and sensitivity tothe possibility of one’s own bias.

3. Analyticity. assesses prizing the application of reasoning and the use of evi-dence to resolve problems, anticipating potential conceptual or practicaldif® culties, and consistently being alert to the need to intervene.

4. Systematicity. Measures being organized, orderly, focused, and diligent ininquiry.

5. Inquisitiveness. A measure of one’s intellectual curiosity and desire for learningeven when the application of the knowledge is not readily apparent.

6. CT self-con® dence. Measures the trust one places in one’s own reasoning pro-cesses. CT self-con® dence allows one to trust the soundness of one’s ownreasoned judgments and to lead others in the rational resolution of problems.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dispositions Toward Critical Thinking 33

7. Maturity. Targets the disposition to be judicious in one’s own decision-making.The CT-mature individual is one who approaches problems, inquiry, anddecision-making with a sense that some problems are necessarily ill-structured,some situations admit more than one plausible option, and many times judg-ments must be made based on standards, contexts and evidence that precludecertainty.

Scores on the seven CCTDI scales can range from 10 to 60. A score of 30 andbelow on any of the seven scales indicates consistent opposition or weakness tothat given disposition; a score of 40 or higher indicates a positive endorsement ofthat attribute; and scores above 50 indicate consistent endorsement or strength ofthe disposition. Facione and Facione (1992), however, point out that scores above50 are rare because all individuals have strengths and weaknesses about CTdispositions. The total CCTDI score may range from 70 to 420, with a score above280 indicative of a positive overall disposition toward CT.

Although convergent validity studies between various CT disposition measuresare not available, Sanchez (1993) reported signi® cant correlations supporting theconcurrent validity between individual CCTDI scale and psychological scales thattargeted the observed constructs. Reliability tests reported an overall test score(Cronbach’s Alpha) of 0.90; subscale scores ranged from 0.71 to 0.80 (Facione et al.,1994). Studies using the CCTDI consistently reported satisfactory reliability mea-sures on the instrument and its subscales (Facione et al., 1995; Jacobs, 1995; Berset al., 1996). Reliability measures obtained from the present study generatedCronbach’s alpha coef® cients on the seven subscales that ranged from 0.52(Open-Mindedness) to 0.71 (Inquisitiveness and Self-Con® dence). The Total TestScore coef® cient was 0.86. While not as robust as cited in previous studies usingthe CCTDI, we were willing to tolerate the obtained coef® cients given the natureof the study.

Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991) present an excellent discussion on thedetermination of acceptable reliability coef® cients. Instead of citing authoritativesources decreeing whether a given reliability coef® cient is acceptable, Pedhazurand Schmelkin conclude that it is up to the researcher to determine `whatamount of error he or she is willing to tolerate, given the speci® c circumstancesof the study’ (1991, p. 110). Since the CCTDI had been consistently appliedin related studies and that its use permitted comparisons of our data to previousdata, we were willing to accept the obtained coef® cients. Considering thedata comparisons we were able to generate, we considered the tradeoff a favor-able one.

Procedure

After obtaining permission to conduct the study from our Institutional ReviewBoard, colleagues from each geographical region were contacted at their educa-tional institutions and invited to participate. All colleagues were members of theAmerican Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance and/or the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

34 R. E. McBride et al.

American Educational Research Association, had scholarly records in physicaleducation pedagogy as evidenced by presentations at professional meetingsor journal publications, and taught in their respective teacher preparation pro-gram.

Copies of the CCTDI, accompanying answer sheets, and a cover letter explain-ing the administration procedure were then mailed out. To ensure consistency ofadministration of the CCTDI across sites, instructions for administration wereincluded on the instrument to be read to the participants. Participation wasvoluntary, the instrument was administered in the secondary methods class, andtook 20± 30 minutes to complete. As already noted, all representatives contacted atthe sites were experienced researchers and/or scholars familiar with data collec-tion procedures. Aside from requested biographical information (gender, ethnic-ity, specialization, classi® cation, and present grade point average), respondentsdid not identify themselves. The tests and completed answer sheets were returnedto the investigators for tabulation. All sheets were scored, summarized andsubjected to analysis.

To address the second research questionÐ are there differences between thisuniversity preservice sample and other university/college students?Ð we conduc-ted a review of the literature on preservice teacher CT dispositions. No studies forcomparison between students with different majors were found. However, twostudies using the CCTDI with college/university students emerged. Unlike thepresent study, which examines a speci® c subpopulation, the two studies made nodistinction between academic majors when examining CT dispositions. In the ® rst,Facione et al. (1995) examined a cohort group of freshmen (n 5 537) at a private4-year university. Bers et al. (1996), in the second study, assessed students(n 5 185) enrolled at a community college and then compared their results withthose of the Facione study. The Bers et al. (1996) study established the precedentfor our comparison of the preservice physical education data with published datafrom the two already-identi® ed university populations.

Data Analysis

Preliminary analysis of the data revealed no signi® cant differences (F(8,193) 5 1.56, p 5 0.139) among the nine universities in CT dispositions and so thedata were collapsed into one sample. Descriptive statistics were computed foreach of the seven subscales and the total score to provide a CT dispositions pro® le.A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the seven subscales and ananalysis of variance (ANOVA) on the total score were performed to determinewhether gender impacted CT dispositions. The descriptive statistics were thencompared with data obtained from two previous studies examining the CTdispositions of university-aged students.

Because multiple comparisons across sample groups on the seven subscales ofthe CCTDI occurred, we used the Bonferroni adjustment to control for exper-iment-wise error. The alpha level of each comparison was set at 0.007, resulting inan overall alpha level of p , 0.05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dispositions Toward Critical Thinking 35

Results

Means, standard deviations, and range of scores for each of the seven subscalesand the total score of the CCTDI are reported in Table I. The CCTDI pro® le for thissample of preservice physical educators showed a positive disposition toward allCT subscales except truth-seeking. The total score (mean 5 288.91) also revealed apositive inclination toward CT.

The MANOVA analysis yielded a signi® cant main effect for gender, (F(7,194) 5 3.50, p , 0.0015). Follow-up univariate F tests revealed that female studentsscored higher than their male counterparts on the Open-Mindedness (F(1,200) 5 6.31, p , 0.0128), the Inquisitiveness (F(1, 200) 5 6.33, p , 0.0127), and theMaturity subscales (F(1, 200) 5 7.51, p , 0.0067). The ANOVA analysis revealed asigni® cant gender difference on the total score (F(1, 200) 5 5.59, p , 0.019), withfemale students outperforming male students.

When comparing subscale and total scores of this population of universitystudents with two other university samples (see Table II), several signi® cant

TABLE I. Means and standard deviations (SD) on the CCTDI

Subscale name Mean SD Range

Truth-Seeking 34.87 5.64 20.00± 49.00Open-Mindedness 40.95 6.27 18.00± 57.00Analyticity 43.32 5.23 27.00± 56.00Systematicity 40.67 5.23 22.00± 57.00CT Self-Con® dence 42.53 6.98 16.00± 60.00Inquisitiveness 43.81 6.81 13.00± 60.00Maturity 41.60 7.54 22.00± 58.00Total Score 288.91 29.77 209.00± 374.00

TABLE II. Comparison of mean scores of preservice teachers, freshman cohort, at a private4-year university and community college students on the CCTDI

Preservice Universtity Cohort Community Cohort(n 5 202) (n 5 587) (n 5 185)

Subscale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Truth-Seeking 34.87 5.64 35.36 5.40 31.44 6.28Open-Mindedness 40.95 6.27 44.96 5.73 40.91 5.72Analyticity 43.32 5.23 42.89 5.08 42.76 5.01Systematicity 40.67 5.23 40.30 6.55 36.97 6.76Self-Con® dence 42.53 6.98 42.53 6.22 42.86 6.53Inquisitiveness 43.81 6.81 47.60 6.10 44.64 6.61Maturity 41.60 7.54 44.58 6.38 39.94 6.88Total Score 288.91 29.77 298.22 27.36 279.52 27.24

SD, Standard deviation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

36 R. E. McBride et al.

differences occurred. Signi® cant differences between the samples occurred on theInquisitiveness (F(2, 971) 5 34.11, p , 0.001), the Open-Mindedness (F(2,971) 5 55.54, p , 0.001), the Systematicity (F(2, 971) 5 19.71, p , 0.001), the Truth-Seeking (F(2, 971) 5 31.66, p , 0.001) and the Maturity (F(2, 971) 5 39.59, p , 0.001)subscales, as well as for the Total Test Score (F(2, 971) 5 35.00, p , 0.001). Sub-sequent Scheffe tests indicated that the private university students performedbetter than both the community college and preservice students on the Inquisitive-ness and Open-Mindedness subscales. No signi® cant differences were foundbetween the community college and physical education student sample. On theTruth-Seeking and Systematicity subscales, both the private university and preser-vice physical education students performed better than the community collegestudents. There were no signi® cant differences between the private and preservicestudents. The private university students scored signi® cantly higher than both thecommunity college and physical education students on the Maturity subscale andthe Total Test Score, while the preservice students performed signi® cantly betterthan their community college counterparts.

Discussion

A predisposition toward CT seems to be a characteristic of this sample. Althougha positive dispositional pro® le emerged, it is dif® cult to ascertain if this universitypreservice student population is unique without a corresponding sample forcomparison. While no other preservice student predisposition data could befound, a review of the literature retrieved two studies that assessed CT disposi-tions of college-aged students. Both samples were obtained from the overallstudent population and did not differentiate between speci® c college majors of theparticipants. Data obtained from the two studies afforded the opportunity tocompare our university subpopulation sample with that of other university/college students.

Facione et al. (1995) examined a freshman cohort group at a private 4-yearcomprehensive university and Bers et al. (1996) assessed students enrolled at acommunity college. While students at a private university (private universitystudents are typically strong academically as measured by high school GradePoint Average and Scholastic Aptitude Test scores) and community college maynot be representative of all university students, they do provide a rudimentarymeasure for comparison of college-aged students on the CCTDI.

Although outscored by the private university sample on the Inquisitiveness andOpen-Mindedness subscales, there were no differences between the preservicesample and the private university sample on the Truth-Seeking and Systematicitysubscales. The preservice sample was outscored again on the Maturity and TotalTest Score. The preservice students, however, consistently outscored thecommunity college students. In short, they fell at the midpoint of the threecomparative samples.

Of particular note, all three samples recorded their lowest scores (at or below35) on the Truth-Seeking subscale. Truth-seeking targets the attribute of pursuing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dispositions Toward Critical Thinking 37

the best knowledge in a given context, asking questions, and being honest andobjective about pursuing inquiry. Those predisposed to truth-seeking continuallyevaluate new information and are willing to change or adjust their beliefs. Thosedisinclined oppose that which might call into question preconceptions or interests.Facione et al. (1995) present a scenario where de® cits in this disposition maysubject a client to malpractice as a result of a medical practitioner’s inattention toevidence of a missed diagnosis or changing status of a case. The resistance totruth-seeking appears to be a universal weakness among the university studentssurveyed.

Truth-seeking physical educators might be expected to evaluate new infor-mation and evidence, and apply it to their teaching. A person weak in this areawould tend to rely on rote habit (`This is the way I learned it, so this is the wayI’ll teach it’ ) rather than relying on tested theory and methodology. Since pro-fessional preparation programs present the most recent research and knowledgeabout effective teaching in today’s schools, the expectation is that graduates useand disseminate this information in their teaching and teaching practices. Beingunattuned or unresponsive may perpetuate professional practices that lackre¯ ectivity to change in one’s content area.

Data obtained can provide the physical education teacher education facultyrepresented in this study with helpful information or insight into their teachingand course offerings. Knowing that their students may be disinclined or lacksensitivity toward truth-seeking, faculty might place additional emphasis onbringing their students into a culture that encourages inquiry, asks good ques-tions, and seeks the best information before making decisions. Such an emphasiswould be needed, for example, when teaching a wellness-oriented curriculumwhere physical education teachers must provide up-to-date information andequip their students with requisite CT skills for making important lifestyledecisions.

A recorded score of 35 indicates some degree of resistance or insensitivity to thisimportant CT disposition. Providing for a stronger disposition toward truth-seeking might become a salient objective in preparing future teachers. At presentwe do not know if this potential disinclination toward truth-seeking is character-istic of all university/college students, just speci® c to this content area, or if thereis a weakness in the scale itself. Additional research that expands the populationof preservice participants and content areas must occur before any de® nitiveconclusions may be drawn.

Also of note were the signi® cant differences found between genders on theOpen-Mindedness, Inquisitiveness, and CT Maturity subscales of the CCTDI.In all cases, the females outscored their male counterparts on these affectiveindicators of critical thinking. McBride (1999) noted similar ® ndings on theOpen-Mindedness and Maturity subscales in his study, but attributed the differ-ences to maturational differences between genders in his adolescent population(ninth graders).

Having these ® ndings replicated with an older population of students wherematuration is not a factor suggests that other issues may be present. Lyons (1983),

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

38 R. E. McBride et al.

for example, spoke of interpersonal reasoning that was quite different from thelogico-mathematical reasoning and rationality typically identi® ed with the cogni-tive skills associated with critical thinking. Walters criticizes the traditional CTmodel of rationality as the calculus of justi® cation in which good thinking isassociated with cognitive processes `exclusively oriented by the logical principlesof analytical computation, and reduces rationality to little more than the criticalscrutiny of ready-to-hand arguments’ (1990, p. 454). Interpersonal reasoning, onthe contrary, involves `moral dialogue between agents who strive to achievebalanced agreement, based on compromise they reach or on their joint discoveryof interests they hold in common’ (Haan, 1978, p. 303).

Noddings (1991) states that interpersonal reasoning is guided by an ethic andattitude of caring and solitude. She identi® es four other important features: (1)attention, (2) ¯ exibility, (3) effort aimed at cultivating the relation, and (4) a searchfor an appropriate response. Lyons (1983) also emphasized the centrality oflistening, connecting, and taking responsibilityÐ all capacities historicallyassociated with women. This unobtrusive and often tentative way of reasoning,Noddings (1991) posited, may have developed in women because of centuries ofpowerlessness in a male-dominated society.

Items from the Open-Mindedness, Inquisitiveness, and CT Maturity subscalesstruck an accordant note with the female participants and may be an indicator ofhow they approach the reasoning process. Factors that entail considering options,having concerns about potential biases, placing importance on understandingwhat others think (items from the Open-Mindedness scale), being excited aboutstudying new things, seeking information before making decisions, looking for-ward to challenging things (items from the Inquisitiveness scale), and developingcareful arguments, accepting ambiguity, recognizing limitations in ones point ofview (items from the CT Maturity scale) require open, ¯ exible, and responsivereasoning abilities. Such characteristics stand in marked contrast to the kind ofrational thinking valued in academic circles and to what Walters (1990) refers toas the vulcanization of knowledge. Stanton (1996) agrees and ® nds the kinds ofthinking identi® ed with interpersonal reasoning as a ¯ ight from rationality.Although speculative on our part, additional research examining CT dispositionsbetween genders is warranted.

It must be noted, however, that these are (affective) CT dispositions, not(cognitive) CT skills; they represent ongoing tendencies that guide intellectualbehavior (Tishman et al., 1993). Re¯ ecting on the triadic dispositions theory, oneis reminded that an inclination toward a speci® c subscale or overall total scoredoes not guarantee or even predict greater CT skill. Strength in a given subscalereveals that an individual is more or less inclined to use the skills he/shepossesses, while weakness in a subscale suggests a person would not be inclinedto use his/her skills, even if considerable (Facione et al., 1995). Tishman (personalcommunication, 1998) provides additional insight. She believes that the `sensi-tivity’ component of dispositions may be even more problematic than inclinationconcerns alone. Sensitivity appears to involve a perception-like mechanism fordetecting CT occasions in the absence of explicit cues or prompts. Not noticing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Dispositions Toward Critical Thinking 39

occasions for CT (in this case, truth-seeking) represents an even greater obstacle tothe enactment of CT skill than lacking willpower or motivation.

While this sample of preservice students appear willing to expend cognitiveeffort to solve problems, the next question to explore is will they? Researchexamining CT skills of other preservice teachers and linking them to dispositionalelements should follow. Perhaps the most signi® cant question of all: even ifpredisposed to CT, will preservice teachers in fact consciously teach for CT duringtheir induction years and beyond? While little is known about the extent to whichteacher preparation programs actually prepare students for CT in the schools, thisstudy represents an important ® rst step in generating new knowledge and theoryabout the CT dispositions of future teachers.

Correspondence: Ron E. McBride, Department of Kinesiology, Texas A&M Univer-sity, College Station, TX 77843, USA. Tel.: 1 1 979 845 8788; Fax: 1 1 979 847 8987;E-mail: rmac@tamu.edu

References

BERS, T., MCGOWAN, M. & RUBIN, A. (1996) The disposition to think critically among communitycollege students: the California critical thinking dispositions inventory, The Journal ofGeneral Education, 45, pp. 197± 223.

BEYER, B. (1987) Practical Strategies for the Teaching of Thinking (Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon).CARNEGIE COUNCIL ON ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (1989) Turning Points: preparing American youth

for the 21st century (New York, Carnegie Corporation).CASE, R. & WRIGHT, I. (1997) Taking seriously the teaching of critical thinking, Canadian Social

Studies, 32(1), pp. 12± 19.ENNIS, R. (1987) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities, in: J. BARON & R.

STERNBERG (Eds.) Teaching Thinking Skills: theory and practice, pp. 9± 26 (New York, W.H.Freeman).

ENNIS, R. (1994) Critical thinking dispositions: theoretical and practical considerations in theirdelineation, endorsement, and assessment . Unpublished manuscript (University of Illi-nois, Champaign).

FACIONE, P. & FACIONE, N. (1992) The California Critical Thinking Dispositions Inventory (CCTDI)and the CCTDI Test Manual (Milbrae, CA, California Academic Press).

FACIONE, N, FACIONE, P. & SANCHEZ, M. (1994) Critical thinking disposition as a measure ofcompetent clinical judgment: the development of the California Critical Thinking Dispo-sition Inventory, Journal of Nursing Education, 33, pp. 345± 350.

FACIONE, P., SANCHEZ, C., FACIONE, N. & GAINEN, J. (1995) The disposition toward critical think-ing, The Journal of General Education, 44, pp. 1± 25.

HAAN, N. (1978) Two moralities in action contexts: relationship to thought, ego regulation, anddevelopment, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, pp. 286± 306.

JACOBS, S. (1995) The Effects of Item Modi® cations on Item and Test Characteristics of a Measure ofCritical Thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, San Francisco, CA, April 18± 22.

JONES, E. (1995) De® ning Essential Critical Thinking Skills For College Graduates. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco,CA, April 18± 22.

KING, P., WOOD, P. & MINES, R. (1990) Critical thinking among college and graduate students, TheReview of Higher Education, 13, pp. 167± 186.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14

40 R. E. McBride et al.

LYONS, N. (1983) Two perspectives: on self, relationships, and morality, Harvard EducationalReview, 53(2), pp. 125± 145.

MCBRIDE, R. (1992) Critical thinkingÐ an overview with implications for physical education,Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11, pp. 112± 125.

MCBRIDE, R. (1999) The Effects of Two Teaching Styles on Student Critical Thinking. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,Quebec, April 19± 23.

NODDINGS, N. (1991) Stories in dialogue, in: C. WITHERELL & N. NODDINGS (Eds.) Stories Lives Tell:narrative and dialogue in education, pp. 157± 170 (New York, Teachers College Press).

PEDHAZUR, E. & SCHMELKIN, L. (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: an integrated approach(Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

PERKINS, D. & TISHMAN, S. (1998) Dispositional Aspects of Intelligence. Paper presented at TheSecond Spearman Seminar, The University of Plymouth, Devon, UK, July.

PERKINS, D., JAY, E. & TISHMAN, S. (1993) Beyond abilities: a dispositional theory of thinking,Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, pp. 1± 21.

RATCLIFF, J. (1993) Achieving National Education Goal 5.5 Within the Framework of the Goals 2000Program (PA, National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment, ThePennsylvania State University, University Park).

RICKMAN, H. (1981) For want of thought, Oxford Review of Education, 7, pp. 273± 281.SANCHEZ, C. (1993) An exploration of cognitive strategies and dispositions in relation to ego

resiliency. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Riverside, CA.SCHAFER, P. (1972) An inquiry into the relationship between critical thinking ability of teachers

and selected variables, Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, p. 1066A.SIMON, A. & WARD, L. (1974) The performance on the Watson± Glaser thinking appraisal of

university students classi® ed according to sex, type of course pursued, and personalityscore category, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, pp. 957± 960.

SKINNER, S. (1971) The myth of teaching for critical thinking, The Clearing House, 45, pp. 373± 376.STANTON, A. (1996) Recon® guring teaching and knowing in the college classroom, in: N.

GOLDBERGER, J. TARULE, B. CLINCHY & M. BELENKY (Eds.) Knowledge, Difference, and Power,pp. 25± 56 (New York, Basic Books).

TISHMAN, S., JAY, E. & PERKINS, D. (1993) Teaching thinking dispositions: from transmission toenculturation, Theory into Practice, 32, pp. 147± 153.

UNDERBAKKE, B., BORG, J. & PETERSON, D. (1993) Researching and developing the knowledge basefor teaching higher order thinking, Theory into Practice, 32, pp. 138± 146.

WALTERS, K. (1990) Critical thinking, rationality, and the vulcanization of students, Journal ofHigher Education, 61, pp. 448± 467.

WRIGHT, I. (1996) Using the social studies textbook to teach critical thinking, Canadian SocialStudies, 30(2), pp. 68± 71.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 0

2:22

21

Dec

embe

r 20

14